~ This blog will be an attempt to explain the significance of various works of great writing, the authors that create them, and some effort to understand correlations between great writing and contemporary events.

Why don’t you let yourself just be somewhere different.
Whoa, why don’t you let yourself just be whoever you are.

–Be Wherever You Are, Rebecca Sugar

To be frank I have often considered myself more of a fan of We Bare Bears. Growing up I didn’t have a brother, I was blessed with a sister who would frequently whoop my ass, and so watching the show there’s a nice opportunity to watch a relationship I never had. That and I love Ice Bear, his monotones are the stuff of genius. As for my wife her favorite Cartoon Network show is still The Amazing World of Gumball. It’s incredible to see how a show riddled with so many smart jokes that range in satire of government bureaucracy to economic strategies retail outlets employ in order to sucker people into impulse buying. Along with these shows we also enjoy watching Adventure Time, Uncle Grandpa (at least I do), and even Clarence. Let’s not talk about Teen Titans Go! however, it’s still too soon.

It may seem odd at first that a man in his late twenties enjoys cartoons designed for children and young adults, but I can assure you there’s a harmless albeit pathetic explanation for this: my wife and I are often out of the house and so we leave the television on for the pets. It may seem ridiculous but since we were in school most of the day, and now entering “the real world” whatever that is, we weren’t comfortable just leaving the pets in the dark of the house with no noise. My Huckleberry is a bit of a weenie and I wanted to make sure he felt like someone was still there and I don’t have the heart to leave FOX News on for him. Sometimes it would be PBS, other times it was CNN, but after a while the go-to channel was Cartoon Network because…well, there it was. In my madder moments I would imagine the pets asking me to leave on Cartoon Network because they wanted to watch Adventure Time, but that’s revealing information my wife will need for the committal. After a while we would come home, either together or separately and over time we found that, after a long day at work and school, it was nice to just sit down and watch an episode of Gumball or Clarence. The shows were designed for kids, but the humor was often smart in these shows and so they became a staple. One show in particular however I resisted for reasons I honestly don’t know.

Steven Universe, for those unfamiliar with the show, is rather Queer is almost every sense of the term. I won’t be the first person writing on a blog that has observed this, and I surely won’t be the last, but recently I began reading J. Jack Halberstam’s book Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal and so looking at Steven Universe and my recent upsurge in watching the show it seemed like a good time to throw my hat into the ring if I can use an over-used yet still effective visual metaphor.

Steven Universe is about a young boy growing up in a small town on the edge of the ocean called Beach City. It has a donut shop, the local blogger/conspiracy theorist, a group of trendy teenagers resisting the fact that they’re going to wind up working and living mundane lives in the city when they get older, and at the very edge of town live a group of outcasts by the name of The Crystal Gems. Garnet, Amethyst, and Pearl are three survivors of an ancient war between a civilization known as Gems. Gems are anthropomorphic feminine humanoids that are, in the most basic explanation possible, rocks. A Gem’s main body is a single gem that contains their spirit, energy, and soul and from it they are able to manifest a physical body which assumes different personalities depending on the gem which can run from pearls, amethysts, diamonds, rubies, paradot, lapis lazuli, quartz, jasper, etc. and within this society is a rigid class system which assigns “roles” to gems given their stone. The Crystal Gems are the last of a rebellion army that tried to fight this system and their former leader, a gem known as Rose Quartz but often referred to as “Rose,” has been remade after falling in love with a young human named Greg Universe. Steven is their “son,” but he’s also Rose for on his stomach he bears her quartz. The show then, is about the Crystal Gems raising Steven along with Greg and often encountering gems from the Home World who are in constant effort trying to defeat them.

The reader may wonder where the Queerness comes into play, and I have to start first with the most obvious example of the character Garnet who is in fact a “fusion” of two smaller gems named Ruby and Sapphire. Now it’s important to clarify the misinterpretation, that many casual viewers including myself early on made about what “fusion” actually is. The Gems in Steven Universe, while they don’t possess any kind of sex, do exhibit feminine gender presentations and even use female pro-nouns when referring themselves or others. This by itself wouldn’t be so terribly interesting since we’re living in a period of Third-Wave Feminism and so seeing more and more female representation in cartoons isn’t that shocking. It’s refreshing and fun to watch, but not necessarily shocking. Many have objected to Steven Universe however for the show relies on Garnet as well as other gems “fusing” which many see as sex, when watching the show regularly clearly demonstrates something far more important.

Fusion is not sex, but rather a kind of energy relationship.

To give the best explanation I can I have to go to chemistry. I tutored biology for four years, married a biologist, my best friend is a biochemist, and through these regular interactions I learned a bit about chemistry particularly about chemical bonds. What my friends, wife, teachers, and eventually I would stress to students was that chemical bonds, that is bonds between the various elements that exist in nature, were not physical objects. Many people would show bonding by holding hands, but what I eventually learned was that that visual didn’t actually work. Chemical bonds were described as “energy relationships” in which the elements would remain connected through the electromagnetics of the bond, and while there was nothing physical holding them together, there was still energy drawing them towards one another.

This to me is the best way to explain “fusion” in Steven Universe for it’s clear that the creator of the show, Rebecca Sugar, wants to introduce young kids to the idea of queer relationships and queer families.

Recently at San Diego Comic-Con Sugar came-out as bisexual to an adoring crowd:

These things have so much to do with who you are, and there’s this idea that these are themes that should not be shared with kids, but everyone shares stories about love and attraction with kids. So many stories for kids are about love, and it really makes a difference to hear stories about how someone like you can be loved and if you don’t hear those stories it will change who you are. It’s very important to me that we speak to kids about consent and we speak to kids about identity and that we speak to kids about so much. I want to feel like I exist and I want everyone else who wants to feel that way to feel that way too.

It might just be because of the region I grew up but this has been seen by some as a radical approach, and while some parents have tried to make the argument that kids should wait until they’re older Sugar’s response has both tact and wisdom:

“You can’t wait until kids have grown up to let them know that queer people exist. There’s this idea that that is something that should only be discussed with adults — that is completely wrong. If you wait to tell queer youth that it matters how they feel or that they are even a person, then it’s going to be too late!”

The first person I ever came out to was a transgender man. I use the word “man” loosely because they confessed to me later on that my use of the word “man,” “dude,” “sir,” and “he” made them uncomfortable, the argument being that, while they understood it was hardwired Southern gentility on my part and not an effort to write the narrative of their life, it was still an act of “gendering” them which felt far more nuanced and personal. There are some that might immediately ask “well dude is it really that important,” but I try to avoid being an asshole to the best of my ability and so when somebody tells me they don’t like something I try to avoid doing it. They became J—- instead. I’ve censored their name because I don’t wish to “out” them. J—- remains such a crucial part of my life, not just because he was the first person I came out to as Bi, but because he introduced me to Jack Halberstam.

I’ve mentioned before, some would say ad nauseum, that I took a Queer Theory course in graduate school and while I read Bersani, Sedgewick, Butler, and Foucault, Halberstam was an entirely different animal, and in fact I originally had no real intention of reading their work. Before one of our meetings J—- showed me the book Gaga Feminism and encouraged me to read it when I could, but whenever people tell me I should read a book it’s like placing a letter in a mass mail box. I’ll eventually get to it, but it’s going to be buried beneath dozens of other suggestions, considerations, and recommendations. After reading the first half of Female Masculinity however I was hooked and I realized Halberstam was not only an important Queer theorist, they were also someone that had a unique perspective into multiple areas of culture.

And its Lady Gaga who provides the working model.

Halberstam argues in the first chapter of their book that Lady Gaga’s stage performance provides a fascinating new platform for a new kind of feminism:

Gaga feminism proposes that we look more closely at heterosexuality, not simply to blame it for the continued imbalance of the sexes but to find in its collapse new modes of intimate relation. And this form of feminism actually imagines that men as well as women will feel liberated by the possibilities that the end of heterosexuality and the end of normal create. (22).

This quote is perfectly functional for an opening thesis, and while I understand Halberstam’s point, I feel genuinely that the passage that follows it lays out a far clearer message of what their creative and intellectual goals are:

But…what if we incorporate all the macro changes that we have experienced in a few short decades into the everyday? What if we start noticing that the families in which children grow up are far different from the families in which many of us were raised, and that those changes have often been for the better? The claustrophobias of the nuclear family was formerly only alleviated by more family, extended family, by cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents. But now, children are apt to have many adults in their life, adults, moreover, to whom they are not even related. […] What would happen if we actually began to incorporate this version of the family into our mainstream representations? (22-23).

Growing up I was raised in what is often referred to as a “nuclear family unit” and this structure is made up of the characters of father, mother, and two children usually of different sexes. This working model of the family is the stuff of 1950s white suburbia and came to embody the cultural consciousness in television programs like Leave it to Beaver and also in later shows like Happy Days, The Simpsons, and Boy Meets World. Even animated television programs like Doug and Rugrats growing up would rely on fact that the nuclear family was the standard unit that made up the family of America, and while most mainstream films and television continue this model for fear of offending or upsetting the heterosexual “majority,” Halberstam’s analysis does beg the question: is the nuclear family still “the norm?”

For my own part I’ll say no because growing up I watched many Robin William’s movies, one of which was Mrs. Doubtfire. On a small note I watched this movie and wept on the night I heard that Robin Williams had died, but then again who didn’t? The film was unique for the fact that it freely dealt with the topic of divorce, and while the film does rely on heterosexual relationships for it’s “norm,” the final lines of the film do seem to echo the sentiment of Halberstam’s questions:

Mrs. Doubtfire: [reading a letter] “Dear Mrs. Doubtfire, two months ago, my mom and dad decided to separate. Now they live in different houses. My brother Andrew says that we aren’t to be a family anymore. Is this true? Did I lose my family? Is there anything I can do to get my parents back together? Sincerely, Katie McCormick.” Oh, my dear Katie. You know, some parents, when they’re angry, they get along much better when they don’t live together. They don’t fight all the time, and they can become better people, and much better mummies and daddies for you. And sometimes they get back together. And sometimes they don’t, dear. And if they don’t, don’t blame yourself. Just because they don’t love each other anymore, doesn’t mean that they don’t love you. There are all sorts of different families, Katie. Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. And some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. And some live in separate homes, in separate neighborhoods, in different areas of the country – and they may not see each other for days, or weeks, months… even years at a time. But if there’s love, dear… those are the ties that bind, and you’ll have a family in your heart, forever. All my love to you, poppet, you’re going to be all right… bye-bye.

Throughout Gaga Feminism Jack Halberstam cites the examples of contemporary films noting how heterosexuality is often painted as “the norm” or ideal relationship model for people living in contemporary society, but as Mrs. Doubtfire, Halberstam, and Steven Universe have demonstrated that particular model is not only not always efficient, sometimes it just doesn’t work for everyone and so different family models emerge. This is not to suggest that heterosexual people are doomed to suffer unnecessarily in their relationships and that only Queer people will find happiness. While I am bisexual, I married a woman because I loved her and so far it’s not only worked, it’s given me what I needed psychologically, philosophically, personally, etc. My success in the heteronormative model of relationship however should never be looked upon as “the norm” because my wife and I are far too odd to ever be called normal (just to put it in perspective I’m an atheist who spends most of his time reading and talking to himself and my wife reveres “Ceiling Cat” …Google it).

To be honest, having finished Gaga Feminism now I recognize some flaws, or perhaps just perceive some, in Halberstam’s final answer to the flaws and weaknesses in the marriage narrative, but looking back to Steven Universe there is one point Halberstam notes that is pressingly relevant:

Marriage pits the family and the couple against everyone else; alternative intimacies stretch connections between people and across neighborhoods like invisible webs, and they bind us to one another in ways that foster communication, responsibility, and generosity. (110-1).

Steven Universe is an odd and wonderful show because it offers a chance to see a side of the world that has, up to this point, largely been ignored by mainstream cartoons: the lives and relationships of queer women. I recognize that technically the gems are not women in the sense that human beings are women, but female humanoids interacting and forming homo-social, homo-erotic bonds is enough of a political statement to argue that the characters are at least queer. In that past cartoons have afforded only minimal access to queer men and women, and often their sexuality is pushed to only a brief reference to a lost love or an old friend, but now a space has been provided in which animators and writers can actually explore queer relationships in cartoons.

Rebecca Sugar is the first female creative director of a cartoon for Cartoon Network, and the cast list of Steven Universe is made up of a wide variety of female actresses from different racial and ethnic background. These achievements are important, but more important is the fact that Sugar pointed out earlier which is that young children who are queer finally have a voice and a presence on T.V. Steven as a character is raised not only by queer women, but also in a queer family structure that satisfies, as far as my reading is concerned, Halberstam’s model of Gaga Feminism, for while gems and characters may form relationships, the topic of marriage is largely left out. Marriage isn’t important or necessary because the energy relationship sustains and nurtures Steven. The best part is despite all the weirdness in his life, or perhaps even better, because of the non-stop weirdness, Steven is a kind soul who only wants to help people.

Part of growing up is asking your parents how they met, how they fell in love, or in the case of children missing a father or mother, what their parent was like. Psychologists most likely have an explanation for this behavior, but for my own part children learn early that narratives are how they shape their identity and eventually find a mate to share their life with and the model that parents establish for their kids at a young age helps them formulate what they understand an ideal mate to be. Queer families may be a recent phenomenon, but as time continues on it’s likely that they’ll become far more prevalent and as such Queer parents, and queer kids, can use a television program like Steven Universe because it offers the same story but with a new face.

Prince Charming may not find Sleeping beauty resting in the tower, but that’s only because another princess got to her first.

*Writer’s Note*

I’ve provided a few links to articles about the LGBTQ themes in Steven Universe, two of which provided the quotes by Sugar herself:

I went ahead and posted a link to the end of Mrs. Doubtfire because watching the scene is far better than ever just reading it, plus it’s a special video that acts as a kind of “tribute” to Robin Williams:

I discovered this right before publishing this essay and so here it is, Rebecca Sugar’s Demo of the song Be Wherever You Are. There is a version of Steven singing the song, but to be honest, Sugar’s voice just gives the song a more soulful delivery, and the way she says “Be” just makes me feel happy. Enjoy:

I’m part of a generation raised with porn. Before the reader begins to imagine my upbringing I need to clarify. While I did stumble upon my dad’s Playboys, and then eventually an actual porno VHS tape, porn was never “laying around” the house when I was growing up. My days were largely spent either playing Legend of Zelda on my Super Nintendo or else watching Robin Williams movies like Hook, Mrs. Doubtfire, or Jumanji. The lines “My first day as a woman, and I’m getting hot flashes” are sealed indelibly upon my psyche for the record. Pornography did eventually make its way into my life, but I was spared the hardcore stuff, in every sense of the word, until I had hit puberty in which case that was purely based upon my own research.

Still despite this porn was everywhere, I just didn’t recognize it as such. When I would read a statistic early in puberty that by age thirteen most kids of my generation will have seen at least 100 sexual images I was surprised and then at the same time not surprised. Films always seemed to have sex in them (I’m thinking of American Pie and that infamous flute), books like Tropic of Cancer or For Whom the Bell Tolls would contain descriptions of sensuality, advertising was brimming with sex based imagery, and Family Guy, my favorite television show, relied regularly on sex for jokes. Pornography then was really just the core media from which every aspect of visual culture was derived.

Still despite this prevalence, and free usage let’s be clear here, I never discovered the work of Jenna Jameson until I was at least sixteen or seventeen, and even then I didn’t have much consideration of her, her work, or what impact she would have upon society. She was yet another blond face in the seemingly endless ocean of naked bodies enjoying the mechanical performance of a sexuality I’ve taken to classify s pornosexuality. This is a sexual expression in which individuals engage in sex with members of the same and opposite sex and exhibit a near insatiable desire for single or multiple partners.

Jenna Jameson may not be the President of the United States (yet, if Trump can run now anybody can), neither is she a diplomat nor an accomplished public orator, but her voice and body has been part of many individual’s personal sexual experiences, and also their reading habits. Including mine.

About two years ago I stumbled upon How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale when I was working up my courage to actually stand and stay in the Sexuality section of the Half Priced Book Store. My hormones hadn’t completely calmed down, but I was getting to that point where a picture of boobs no longer left a me two-hundred-pound ape grunting and groping the air. More importantly I was becoming interested in sexuality not only as a fun activity, but also as a discourse unto itself. Buying up books about homosexual men, sexual expression, the history of lesbianism in early Europe, the history of cultural attitudes about the penis, and sexual behavior in history was intoxicating and while I gathered up a small pile I turned and saw Jameson’s book. I’d seen it before on book shelves but I never had the nerve to actually open it and read it. I added it to the pile, bought it, and began to read.

When the biography was published in 2004 it spent six weeks on the best seller, for all the reasons you probably suspect. One passage alone can probably reveal everything:

I know you’re interesting now because just about everyone is interested in doing it up the butt, whether it’s because they want it, their partner wants it, or they’re just curious. (323).

Now personally before throwing the concept of anal sex into my writing I like to start off either with a joke or an amusing anecdote about Beanie Babies, but then again I’m not a porn star. These few lines are similar to numerous passages throughout the book, and while this particular example of bad rhetoric is designed to entice the reader further, it should be noted that it actually does serve the larger purpose of starting a chapter dedicated to the realities of being a female porn-star. It also is an opportunity for Jameson to reveal a bit of herself, and given the fact this book is a memoir first a bit of self-disclosure is appropriate:

For me to allow a man to have anal sex with me, I must have trust first. Because to be on the receiving end of anal sex is to give yourself completely to your partner. […] And that’s why despite the fact that it is practically an industry standard to have anal sex in every sex scene, I’ve never done it in a film.

It has become a constant issue for me. I’ve been offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to do anal. But even if I walked away with $300,000 for having done it, I would also be taking away the feeling that I gave up something that was really important to me. This is almost embarrassing for a porn star to admit, but I’ve only given that up to three men, all of whom I really loved. (323).

She follows this on the next page with:

If you come into this industry as a woman, you need to have a clearly defined set of guidelines and boundaries for yourself. That’s how you maintain your sanity. And every person I know has a different standard they hold themselves to. (324).

This passage may in fact hold some kind of feminist statement though I recognize immediately just writing that puts me in a precarious position. A cisgender man, even if he is bi-sexual, writing about a pornstar’s memoir and arguing that it’s a feminist document, or contains feminist sentiment, reeks of bad apology and by that I mean it sounds fucking pathetic and sad. Many men before, some of them good writers but most of them just terrible, have attempted to make the argument that a woman starring in porn can have a feminist position, but when you’re making the argument with your dick in your hands it’s a little difficult to take that argument seriously. Even if I don’t watch Jenna Jameson videos regularly, I do believe this passage has some feminist argument behind it.

Whether or not you like porn, or agree that it should even exist, the fact that Jenna Jameson places responsibility of her body, and more importantly control over her body in her own hands rather than in someone else’s is a feminist statement. As such the contesters of this position typically fall back upon the standard yet reliable weapon, namely the word slut.

The arguments against female pornstars are often reduced down into the sentiment that they’re simply sluts. As such nothing they say or do should really be taken seriously because no slut should be taken seriously. There’s a conflict with this however because it is “othering.” By reducing a woman into the title of slut, a critic turns her into an “other” a being that doesn’t represent any kind of humanity and therefore any and all treatment of them is acceptable. I’ve written before that I don’t care much for the word slut. It’s not a pretty word linguistically, it’s almost always used as a pejorative term, and the individuals who typically use it usually seem to possess a holier than thou stance in their approach to life. Slut is used as a weapon to reduce women rather than raise them but at this point the contester emerges.

So what? Jenna Jameson is a pornstar, and the memoir isn’t written by Tolstoy, so why should I bother reading it?

This is a fair question because not even I have full answer to this one. How to Make Love Like a Pornstar: A Cautionary Tale is not literature or art by any means, and in terms of biographies of famous women the lives of Amelia Airheart and Eleanor Roosevelt are almost certainly more the model most parents would prefer their daughters to aspire to. The lack of creativity concerning prose, and the actual details of Jameson’s life creates a conflict when trying to defend this book as art, or at least an important cultural object. However, I will argue that part of the importance of this book was the conversation it started.

Pornography is, at least in America, is an institution that is beloved and despised simultaneously. Before Jenna Jameson’s biography few sex workers had the bravery, or even outlet, to write about their life outside of a few publishing companies sympathetic towards the industry. When Jameson’s biography was published this changed. How to Make Love Like a Pornstar not only proved that pornstar biographies could reach a mass market, it validated the idea that sex workers were a functioning figure in the American cultural landscape. Traci Lords, Asa Akira, Terra Patrick, and Monica Mayhem are just a few of the well-known pornstars to have written memoirs following the success of Jenna Jameson, and in the last few years Belle Knox, the Duke University Student who starred in porn films to pay for her tuition, told her story effectively writing herself into a feminist icon for her generation. Women in pornography are no longer just sluts, they are in fact individual women creating a career and life for themselves that actively involves their bodies.

Jameson’s book addresses this old argument however, by offering her reader a real moment of her humanity. Later in the book she describes an interview she gave during the height of her career on the Howard Stern Program. Stern asked her the usual sexual based question, it is Howard Stern and he has a reputation to live up to, but during the interview he began to ask her if she was in porn because she had a rotten childhood, or if because she was ever abused or molested. Jameson reveals that she said no but that the question summoned the memory of being viciously gang raped by a bunch of football players when she was a teenager. She says no and describes the attack, and just to be clear I won’t repeat the attack here because I refuse to out of general principle. What is important is her reflection on the experience and why she told Howard no:

It had only flashed through my consciousness a couple of times since then, but Howard’s question—I’d never been asked anything so direct—brought the images flooding back. I understood what he was trying to get at. The question had crossed my mind before: Was I in this business because I was victimized or because I wanted to succeed at something? I examined it from every angle I could, and every time came to the same conclusion: that it didn’t make a shred of difference. It occurred too late in my development to be formative. Whether it happened or not, I still would have become a porn star. I’ve been through enough therapists to know that.

I’ve never told about either the Montana experience or the one with Preacher because I don’t want to be thought of as a victim. I want to be judged by who I am as a person, not by what happened to me. In fact, all the bad things have only contributed to my confidence and sense of self, because I survived them and became a better and stronger person for it.

[…]

Ultimately, what really matters is not just the experiences you have at a young age, but whether or not you are equipped—by your parents, your genetics, by your education—to survive and deal with them. (395).

This passage for me is ultimately what demonstrates the value of How to Make Love Like a Pornstar, and what should compel the reader to at least attempt this memoir. I recognize going forward that I haven’t addressed the issue of the pornography industry for the most part, and so it may appear that I condone the manipulation of young girls entering the industry hoping for the kind of fame that actresses like Jameson have achieved. For the record, I don’t. The pornography industry is a business that regularly leaves young women metaphorically and literally screwed and Jameson’s book factually and unromantically addresses this problem.

Porn captures the imagination of the culture it entertains and Jameson’s book ultimately reveals that. Millions of people bought the book with its colorful passages and numerous photographs showing boob after boob after boob, and this desire to know and understand Jameson revealed something about American culture. It’s unlikely that the book will survive the battle against history, but it does stand as an important document that revealed that almost everyone’s browsing history held some dark sticky gem. Those readers eager and desperate to read a tragic story were horribly disappointed, while those readers eager to read about sex got their money’s worth while also reading about a woman who possessed a strength which defied an industry which has, and continues to do so, leave many women defeated, used, or destroyed.

Rather than besmirch it, deny it, or call it a slut however, Jameson’s book allowed a glimpse into the life of a real woman who achieved her success by the choices she made.

It’s not Gloria Steinem, but it’s difficult to find a more feminist message than that.

I’ve tried my best to explain why I feel that this book is a relevant document for contemporary society, but let me make one last argument. Sex workers face a real stigma in our society because their work exists within the double standard. People like and enjoy sex, and they enjoy watching sex, however because no one wants to acknowledge their sexual desire sex workers are typically dehumanized, cast as sluts and perverts, and receive verbal and sometimes physical abuse. Reading Jenna Jameson’s biography in many ways is an act that liberates the reader from this behavior because it forces the reader to acknowledge that she is actually a human being. Pornstars are people, living breathing people with their own personalities, dreams, ambitions, desires, and problems and the sooner society acknowledges this then there can be real progress in combatting the stigma that leads to negative behavior that these people typically have to suffer from the self-righteous or sexually frustrated who usually make their lives miserable. It also helps society by letting people admit freely that they consume pornography as a product, thus opening public, and honest, conversations about sex and whether or not the porn that is being produced honestly conveys a healthy sexual response and behavior.

*Writer’s Note*

Here’s a few links to articles about porn-star biographies, either the individual books or else the larger trend of pornstars writing biographies. Hope you enjoy or else find them interesting:

Since this article was published the periodical WIRED, a technology based magazine, has recently written an article about the inevitability of children being exposed to porn and what that will mean for parents. If the reader is at all interested they can follow the link below and read the article, which, I would highly recommend.